« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Solving The Debt Ceiling & Deficit Crisis Incrementally

Failures in politics often have to do with lack of imagination. On the debt crisis front we have two apparently irreconcilalble positions:
1. We must raise the debt ceiling or the U.S. will suffer grave consequences (default).
2. We cannot afford to continue to borrow and spend, or the U.S. will face bankruptcy eventually.

The obvious solution to this dilemma has been put forward by the Republicans – raise the debt ceiling, but do so in a way that stops the flow of red ink. Any large debt ceiling increase should require a commensurately large change in spending direction. We should say NO to any large debt ceiling increase without:
1. Getting to a path to a balanced budget. WE do have a plan to get to a balanced budget. No, not the Ryan plan, which doesnt balance for decades, but a better one, the Republican Study Group plan. That should be laid on the table as the baseline budget. What makes it better than Ryan is it make more immediate spending reductions, one sure way to get to fiscal balance.
2. Immediate, real, significant spending cuts, requiring spending in FY2012 and beyond to be below 20% of GDP.
3. Defunding and repealing Obamacare and its mandates, taxes, bureacratic regulations, and spending.
4. New Congressional rules a la “Spend-go” that both forces Congress to cut 1-for-1 whenever they vote to spend more, and also protect taxpayers in the bargain, so that we do not force higher taxes as the ‘solution’ to the deficit. It is not.

The 4 points above – A real plan to get to balance; immediate spending cuts; defunding and repealing Obamacare; real rules for fiscal restraint – that is a bold and real approach towards real fiscal conservatism and cutting spending and deficits.

The failure of the Republicans in Congress to drive a better bargain on cutting spending has been due to their failure to push aggressively and BE BOLD in what they demand. The Republican leaders in Congress started too low, at $61 billion in cuts, and too willingly went below that to get the ‘bargain’ that was mostly hollow and double-counted cuts. As it stands today, FY2011 spends $200 billion more than FY2010 did. This is not turning the ship around, this is barely leaning on the wheel. So we need to ask for more and get more doen to cut the spending.

Yet we know the outcome of the above proposals. Obama’s highly partisan budget speech made clear that he will reject this Grand Bargain or even a much weaker set of requirements out of hand. This and any fiscally conservative approach will be rejected by the least fiscally responsible President in American history. Obama wants a blank check – a blank check written against an account that’s below empty. As such, he has built up the debate, with the help of his media minions, as one where, if the debt ceiling is NOT raised, then a calamity will hit the U.S. He wants to blame the Republicans for his own failure to come to terms with them.

As in the government shutdown ‘scare’, the Democrats are engaged more in a PR battle than a serious policy debate. For them, it is all about talking points for the 2012 election. For Republicans, falling into the trap of either letting the shutdown or crisis happen and getting the blame OR falling prey to enough worry that you cut a lousy deal – either error hurts Republicans politically. So how does the GOP stand its ground and at the same time NOT enable the President to create a ‘crisis’? How do we get out of the trap of this false choice?

The answer is simple: Pass small, incremental debt ceiling increases, and include in them a portion of the above 4 points. If we cannot drive a GRAND bargain with the Obama administration, drive small bargains:
- Raise the debt ceiling by $200 billion, combined with agreement on FY2012 budget and inclusion of at least $200 billion in spending cuts over the next 3 years. (Get near term cuts, not the bogus promise of future changes – that’s ‘my diet starts tomorrow’ wishful budget thinking)
- next $200 billion – Repeal a PART of Obamacare, perhaps allowing ANY state to opt out and delaying implementation one year to save hundreds of billions
- next $200 billion – Settle on the long-term path to balanced budget, with ‘spend-go’ rules and spending caps for FY2012 budget and beyond to lock it in as a reality.

Wait, but $200 billion will only last another few months, right? Right. Just like the CRs used to kick the can down the road a ways, and just as we were able to get CRs to include some spending cuts, this method allows us to make SOME budget gains and spending cuts as we hash out the matter. Pass this out of the House, challenge the Senate to do that same, and challenge the President – “We are raising the debt ceiling and doing it in a way that moves us towards fiscal responsibility.” It puts the onus back on the President. If he wants to reject fiscal prudence, let him be against the debt ceiling increase, any default is on his head. He passes the bill and we are back in 2 more months, asking the same question: How much spending cuts and fiscal responsibility can we put in to a short-term debt ceiling increase.

3 further negotiating points: Republicans failed to make sure the Senate was ‘on the hook’ in the prior budget negotiations; we should have required the Senate to pass their own version, then hash it out in conference; that would make the discussion much more 1on1 vs the 2 on 1 when the White House is in the room. People oppose a debt ceiling increase; the democrat demand it be done; fine, let THEM pass a bill out of the Senate FIRST. Beohner can simply point to the Senate and say “If this is a crisis, then Sen Reid should act like it’s one and do something.” Be tardy on it, and every time it comes up, point out that the Senate should act if its important.

Second, the House needs to pass a $1 trillion debt ceiling increase that includes a very STRONG amount of the above. Yes, pass a debt ceiling increase that repeals Obamacare and lay that on the table. Just because the President will push back does not mean it shouldn’t be offered. It will be a popular proposal. Passing much MORE of the spending reductions and budgetary restraints in the large bill will make it much easier to negotiate on a smaller bill.

Third, even if it was brave and solid policy, it was not politically savvy to lead with the Ryan plan and open a long-term discussion about entitlements, when (a) it takes a President to lead on this and (b) it takes the focus off Obamacare. We have a president who has a fundamental disagreement with us on how much we should spend, that disagreement adds up to trillions; so making any long-term ‘deal’ with him is futile. Leave Ryan and fixing entitlements aside, it won’t happen before 2013. Furthermore, it is a political opening for the Democrats to run their ‘Mediscare’ campaign. Instead, the GOP should have 2 goals – think about what smaller short-term gains can be made NOW in cutting spending, and think about 2012.

The worst thing that could be done would be to cave and allow the reckless spend-it-all policy to continue. At some point, the “setup” is such that pressure to do ‘something’ will build. Let the GOP lay the groundwork for a strong principled stand that we must end the fiscal recklessness, by passing a debt ceiling increase out of the House that is chock-full of the Republican spending cuts and fiscal responsibility; and when that ‘do something’ moment comes, let the GOP pass a small and incremental debt ceiling increase that includes more spending cuts.

The President will be forced to do something. If he wants to oppose even incremental steps of fiscal responsibility, let the default be on him.

The liberals have played ‘boil the frog’ on us for years. It’s time for us to start doing it back.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Diogenes314

    Absolutely incrementalism in any raising of the debt ceiling is the way to go. We should start by passing H.R. 421 on to the senate. To quote myself in another diary…

    The Full Faith and Credit Act. Then the ball is in the Senate?s hands. If they pass it and the President signs it, defaulting is a non issue. If not, forget about it and move on.

    As far as raising the ceiling, this is another perfect time for incrementalism. Raise it from 14.3 to 14.8-with the defunding of Obamacare and recision of the EPA ?save-the-planet? rules attached. If the Senate or Planet Healer in Chief want to kill it, forget about it and move on.

    When we hit 14.8, add Ryan?s medicare reforms to a 15.5 raise.

    Repeat as necessary.

    The details aren’t as important as the strategy though. Where I primarily disagree is about the RSG proposal being used instead of the Ryan plan. Whether some of you like it or not, Ryan is the best asset the GOP has going right now. Currently the most powerful figure in the world, the Healer of Planets and Avatar of Hope for Mankind is in a rhetorical life or death struggle with-the head of the House budget committee.

    And losing.

    It is critical that Ryan be the face of budget r4eform-and that he have the full support of the GOP. If we want to win this thing.

    Otherwise, by all means distract the public with Rand Paul, the RSC and whatever.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Yes, the strategy is the key.

      The details, less so. Reality is we wont get much of this past Obama’s desk, so we need to give Obama a set of options where we get the short-term bird-in-the-hand wins NOW. What actual details we can extract out of Obama will be key.

      That’s why IMHO its important to focus on FY2012 funding and get to the lowest number. I dont believe ANY long-term ‘promise’ will be worth a tinker’s dam. The RSG budget is better than Ryan budget in having lower numbers in the next few years. Those lower numbers translate into a balanced budget in 8 years. To me having a balanced budget within 10 years is a significant selling point, and we missed a big opportunity by not using that baseline to get that selling point out there. The lower numbers ALSO make it a better negotiating start point. Frankly, the Ryan budget doesnt spend a lot less than Obama’s budget in FY 2012 and if we use THAT as our starting point, we will – like we did already – end up ‘negotiating’ ourselves to a large FY 2012 with a $800+ billion deficit.

      That said, the House GOP are riding the Ryan budget, and you are correct that it is important to have Ryan as the point man on the budget. I just wish he and the other leaders were bolder and more aggressive in their short-term spending cuts, and I hope they can consider lowering the boom on their FY 2012 proposal, if only to get to a better point at the end of the negotiation.

      (You know if the GOP wanted to get $100 b of cuts in the last round, they needed to start at $200b as their start position. instead, they pre-compromised to $61 then got a $38b that was really more like $16b when the fakery was taken out. We cannot afford that kind of nonsense in FY2012.)

      Thanks for the recommendation.

      • Diogenes314

        One of the knocks on Ryan’s budget is that it doesn’t tackle military spending or SS. The Dems will probably make an issue of this and the Senate deal is supposedly including both aspects.

        Which is fine by me. Our ‘compromise’ will be subtraction by addition. They want manageable defense cuts-they go on top of the non-defense ones. They want to include SS-it gets added on to Medicare reform.

        And there we are-compromising. In exactly the opposite direction they want.

        As far as what to insist upon to raise the debt ceiling, I would prefer to start with abolishing the EPA regs and Obamacare funds just because of the effect on the economy. But that’s just me.

        • The_Gadfly

          of being more difficult for the Dems to spin as a particularly partisan cut. I would have loved for the CR to defund Planned Parenthood and NPR (and PBS) but the Dems were able to spin those as too partisan. I’d rather kill Obamacare straight up too, but don’t think it is realistic in this environment. Still, it might make a good opening salvo and then fall back to “the more reasonable” across the board cuts.

          • YnotNOW

            That they do not elimiinate any specific Government overreach. They do not address the problem of Government trying to do too much (which is unconstitutional, but who reads that 220-year old document anyway), and just says they have to do the same thing a little less expensively. Kicks the can down the road toward the day when the economy rebounds and tax receipts increase, allowing the Dems to continue the program and increase it’s budget (and interference with the economy).

            It is better to actually tackle a real problem, than just chip away and leave all of them in place.

          • concap
    • kestrel

      Since Secretary Geithner likes having the power to single-handedly cause a U.S. default, but won’t accept the accompanying responsibility, let’s take that power away from him. (For reference, see here.) That is what this bill will do. Here’s the current list of 81 cosponsors:

      Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24]
      Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2]
      Rep Amash, Justin [MI-3]
      Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6]
      Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1]
      Rep Black, Diane [TN-6]
      Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7]
      Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10
      Rep Buerkle, Ann Marie [NY-25]
      Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5]
      Rep Campbell, John [CA-48]
      Rep Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [TX-23]
      Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3]
      Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11]
      Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4]
      Rep Duffy, Sean P. [WI-7]
      Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3]
      Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27]
      Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6]
      Rep Fleming, John [LA-4]
      Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17]
      Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4]
      Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5]
      Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2]
      Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5]
      Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18]
      Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11]
      Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
      Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-1]
      Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4]
      Rep Guinta, Frank C. [NH-1]
      Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-24]
      Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1]
      Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2]
      Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1]
      Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14]
      Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4]
      Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3]
      Rep King, Steve [IA-5]
      Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1]
      Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11]
      Rep Kline, John [MN-2]
      Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5]
      Rep Lankford, James [OK-5]
      Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5]
      Rep Long, Billy [MO-7]
      Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9]
      Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14]
      Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24]
      Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5]
      Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42]
      Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5]
      Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22]
      Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2]
      Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
      Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2]
      Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4]
      Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15]
      Rep Price, Tom [GA-6]
      Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3]
      Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29]
      Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8]
      Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2]
      Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46]
      Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4]
      Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16]
      Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12]
      Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2]
      Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-5]
      Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8]
      Rep Scott, Tim [SC-1]
      Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6]
      Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3]
      Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8]
      Rep Webster, Daniel [FL-8]
      Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3]
      Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2]
      Rep Woodall, Rob [GA-7]
      Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3]
      Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9]

      I also agree that Ryan must be the face of budget reform. I’m thankful his budget was passed in the House with only four Republican dissenters. I want this budget to become law. It is a pro-growth budget, not least by lifting moratoriums and bans
      on responsible domestic oil exploration. It is very easy to read. The more I read it, the more I like it. It’s here.

      BTW, another reason NOT to raise the debt ceiling: After QE2 ends in June (that is, after the Federal Reserve stops buying half the U.S. debt with printed money) the shortage of buyers may tempt the government to force banks into buying the debt, similar to the way they forced banks to make bad housing loans. This is ominous. Does anyone really think Obama will say, “Oh, well. No one will lend us anymore money, so I guess we’ll just have to stop spending so much.”?? IMO, John Boehner is in danger of becoming the Neville Chamberlain of our time, endlessly trying to appease a tyrant (Obama).

  • loganyung

    Raising the Debt Ceiling by $200B is about $650 for each American, or about $2,500 for each family of four. It needs to be communicated that the Government is borrowing $2,500 every 2 to three months for each family, or an extra $25K to $30K per family of 4 each year. Let’s make sure that people understand that the Government has to pay interest for this, and that this is interest that is in addition to all the interest that is paid on the current debt.

    • The_Gadfly

      no numbers are going to be real to them.

      • Common_Cents

        Than billions and trillions that cause peoples eyes to glaze over.

        • The_Gadfly

          makes no difference to me if I’m not paying an extra $1 in taxes. Doesn’t matter whether or not I more easily comprehend the lower numbers.

          • YnotNOW

            Because if they do not understand the problem, particularly the size and urgency, then they will not support the pain required to actually address the problem.

            Sure, there are a large number who will refuse to face the problem of deficits, and say “let someone else pay for it,” but if we are able to sway increasing numbers of voters, then we have a working majority to effect meaningful changes.

          • YnotNOW

            Because if they do not understand the problem, particularly the size and urgency, then they will not support the pain required to actually address the problem.

            Sure, there are a large number who will refuse to face the problem of deficits, and say “let someone else pay for it,” but if we are able to sway increasing numbers of voters, then we have a working majority to effect meaningful changes.

  • Patricia_C

    Isn’t it the fight over who gets credit and who can say or do what to win political points (rather than actually trying to solve problems) the reason why there ARE problems in the first place?

    Maybe if our collective assembly of leaders started concentrating on the issues rather than posturing to score political points will leave more time for some actual results.

    • Common_Cents

      They are half azzed problem perpetuators that need a crisis in order to have some political cover to do something, and often that something makes things worse.

      Politicians ‘invest’ taxpayer money for political return, not economic return.

      • aesthete

        The problem is that their “problems” (how to get re-elected, get a coterie of whores and yes-men, get powerful and wealthy, etc) are not ours, and never will be.

        • Common_Cents
        • Patricia_C

          But we can deal with all of that in 2012.

          • harpsichord

            where Clevon Little holds a gun to his own head, and says “the next man makes a move, the ni**er gets it!” The good residents of Rock Ridge GASP and the little old lady says “oh that poor man!”

            You are the good residents of Rock Ridge. You are more worried about “being blamed” than you are of reality.

            The “crisis” that will be “created” by hitting the debt limit will up to the administration. “Default” would be a CHOICE made by the administration.

            Incrementalism is how we GOT here. It isn’t any kind of solution.

  • jerriannh

    It seems like voters, even the ones that don’t get the big numbers, are very clear that they will not accept raising the debt ceiling unless it is at the least tied to significant spending cuts. Resurgent Republic and the American Action Forum just released this poll: http://bit.ly/h9cRP4 with some good insight into the issue.

    Pretty clear! Obama should take the hint.